Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
As the former husband failed to establish that there was a substantial change in the former wife's present financial ability to support herself or that he has suffered economic hardship due to his voluntary early retirement, the Supreme Court properly declined to downwardly modify his maintenance obligations (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; Martin v Martin, 194 A.D.2d 769; Villano v Villano, 98 Misc.2d 774). Moreover, we find that the Supreme Court's award of attorneys' fees to the wife was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; see also, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879; Levine v Levine, 179 A.D.2d 625). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Balletta and Joy, JJ., concur.